Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Londoner »

To define progress as dragging us kicking and screaming back to the 7th century is an unfortunate misuse of the language.
Would we regard Judaism as dragging us kicking and screaming back to 2000BC?

I do not assume that authors born after Jane Austen must have been superior writers; what yardstick shows that ethical and spiritual ideas will improve with time?

And judged by results, surely the notion that progression in time must be accompanied by a progression in civilization and ethics was conclusively disproved by the 20th century.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Obvious Leo »

Londoner wrote:And judged by results, surely the notion that progression in time must be accompanied by a progression in civilization and ethics was conclusively disproved by the 20th century.
Kindly provide this proof.

Regards Leo
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Belinda »

Londoner wrote:

And judged by results, surely the notion that progression in time must be accompanied by a progression in civilization and ethics was conclusively disproved by the 20th century.
If it is indeed true, then civilised and ethical man will arrive at the end of history. Human progress cannot be open ended because of man's inventiveness because matters of fact trump inventiveness. Inventiveness depends upon both facticity and risk: progress towards best civilisation and best ethics depends upon facticity and risk. But man is not placed to live without risk as he is not omniscient and never will be.

While I , like Obvious Leo , believe that modern enlightenment values are better than any that have preceded them I don't believe that they point to the end of history, even if man were capable of the best of rational behaviour.
Socialist
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Londoner »

Obvious Leo wrote:
Londoner wrote:And judged by results, surely the notion that progression in time must be accompanied by a progression in civilization and ethics was conclusively disproved by the 20th century.
Kindly provide this proof.

Regards Leo
Up until the 20th century, we think the single process that was responsible for most deaths was the Mongol invasion, which took place over a century. But during WW2 twice as many were killed in just 6 years. And that was just one of the wars that took place in that century.

But remember, my position is only that humans have not progressed. I need not prove that Pol Pot or Hitler were worse than anything that had gone before, only that people in the 20th century were no more civilised and good than people in the 19th century, say.

It is those who consider that we improved through time that need to explain how the century that produced the Holocaust indicated our general ethical progress/ greater civilisation.
While I , like Obvious Leo , believe that modern enlightenment values are better than any that have preceded them I don't believe that they point to the end of history, even if man were capable of the best of rational behaviour.
First, that is assuming that we have an objective yardstick with which to judge the betterness of particular values that is other than our own belief in them. Of course we consider our own values 'enlightened', 'rational' etc.

But leaving that aside, in what respect are modern values an improvement - or different from the 'Golden Rule', which has appeared in various forms from as far back as we have records?

What changes is the way specific we enact those values (or fail to). There is always a trade-off between self-interest and altruism. I believe in 'equality' but I am also ambitious. I prefer myself and my family to others. I want to avoid pain and death more than I want to be moral. Have humans changed in such respects?

As society changes, the way such dilemmas will be expressed changes. Direct slavery is not currently part of our economic system, so we are all free to be altruistic about slaves. But oil is very much part of the system, so we think twice about offending the Saudis. Once I would have been ostracised if I had expressed sympathy for gays. Now I would be ostracised if I was prejudiced against them. Does that represent a moral improvement - or is it evidence that my fear of being ostracised directs my supposedly moral judgement about sexuality? Maybe our attitude to gays will switch again. What is guaranteed is that whichever attitude currently prevails will be described by that society as 'enlightened'!

So I think our ideas today of what actions constitute moral behaviour are as self-interested as they ever were. To describe ourselves as 'enlightened' is just an exercise in self-validation.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Belinda »

' The Golden Rule' is by no means excluded from what I remember referring to as "enlightenment values". Whatever makes you presume that it is? 'The Golden Rule' is enshrined in all varieties of civilised values since Socrates and the Biblical prophets and Buddha and Confucius. It is part of the history of ideas that is intrinsic to the state of the main world religions and sets of ethical principles this very day.

Enlightenment values are such that scientific and philosophical scepticism highlights the nonsense and lies that have and still do plague religious and other ideas .
Socialist
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Londoner »

Belinda wrote:' The Golden Rule' is by no means excluded from what I remember referring to as "enlightenment values". Whatever makes you presume that it is? 'The Golden Rule' is enshrined in all varieties of civilised values since Socrates and the Biblical prophets and Buddha and Confucius. It is part of the history of ideas that is intrinsic to the state of the main world religions and sets of ethical principles this very day.

Enlightenment values are such that scientific and philosophical scepticism highlights the nonsense and lies that have and still do plague religious and other ideas .
If the Golden Rule has always been current, then what progress is represented by the phrase 'enlightenment values'?

I do not see how science contributes to ethics. For example, how do knowing details about biology help us decide whether abortion is acceptable.

Nor do I see how philosophical scepticism contributes. If anything, wouldn't a sceptical position question whether the notion of ethics - and thus the notion of progress in ethics - has any meaning at all?
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Obvious Leo »

Londoner wrote:I do not see how science contributes to ethics. For example, how do knowing details about biology help us decide whether abortion is acceptable.
This is a foolish reductionist statement and representative of the scourge of our times. Science is more than just a matter of understanding the structures of our physical world. The physical world is not definable in the Newtonian language of its component parts, but these parts must be understood before we can even begin to see the pattern of organisation which integrates these parts into the whole.

No scientist can make our ethical decisions for us but to suggest that we can make them in the absence of empirical knowledge of our biological selves is the sort of statement that makes the natural philosopher puke. If you wish to stand by this statement I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion. If you wish to modify it please do so in a way which makes your meaning clear.

Regards Leo
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Belinda »

Londoner wrote:
I do not see how science contributes to ethics. For example, how do knowing details about biology help us decide whether abortion is acceptable.
Science explains how the foetus develops from an egg and a sperm to a morula and intermediate stages. Science also explains how a foetus can be viable at six months , and what the chances and technology are for a very premature baby to be healthy. The general principle that underlies how science helps us to live good lives is that the more we know the more we are fitted to decide.

This general principle is necessary but not sufficient for making good decisions. There are two other necessary principles. One is that we are think for ourselves as individuals and the other is that we are biologically and culturally able to empathise.

Regarding thinking for ourselves, the author of Pride and Prejudice can be accused of thinking within the box of the ruling class in England at a particular time. However in her defence she does think for herself within a certain facticity. By contrast the heroine of Wuthering Heights takes a long time to succumb to facts and then she dies and deserves to do so for her unfaithfulness to romantic love.
Socialist
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Londoner »

Me: I do not see how science contributes to ethics
Obvious Leo:
This is a foolish reductionist statement and representative of the scourge of our times...

No scientist can make our ethical decisions for us but to suggest that we can make them in the absence of empirical knowledge of our biological selves is the sort of statement that makes the natural philosopher puke. If you wish to stand by this statement I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion. If you wish to modify it please do so in a way which makes your meaning clear.
It is hard to respond because, although you vividly describe your emotional state, you do not make your actual objection clear. What do you mean by 'knowledge of our biological selves'?

Does 'biological self' refer to how we think, in the sense of what might be 'hard wired'? If so, then if something was really 'hard wired' we will act automatically and since we don't make a conscious choice we would not be aware of it as an ethical issue.

But if we are aware that we might be wired to act in a particular way, that knowledge also gives us the option of not acting that way.

For example, if it really was 'natural' for men to rape women, we would simply do it and not see it as an ethical issue. But we are not that way; we are aware that it is a matter of choice therefore ethical considerations apply. Even if a scientist pointed out that the urge to rape might be a function of male hormones, that would not alter the ethics of rape because we would still know that we had this ability to choose.

(If we judge an agency does not have this awareness for some reason (non-human, very young, mental impairment, etc.) then we do not interpret their behaviour as involving moral choice. But that never applies to our own behaviour - I cannot both be aware of a choice - and also deny that I have a choice.)

If that is not what you meant by 'knowledge of our biological selves' - perhaps you mean instead we can derive an 'ought' from an 'is'? - you will have to explain. Hopefully, in philosophical langauge.

Belinda
Science explains how the foetus develops from an egg and a sperm to a morula and intermediate stages. Science also explains how a foetus can be viable at six months , and what the chances and technology are for a very premature baby to be healthy.
I do not see how this bears on abortion. Both sides can agree about the science of how an embryo develops, but one thinks the rights of the embryo trump any right of choice by the mother, and the other side thinks the reverse. There is no scientific experiment which will show which side is correct.
Regarding thinking for ourselves, the author of Pride and Prejudice can be accused of thinking within the box of the ruling class in England at a particular time.
I am reluctant to judge anyone for thinking within the box. I think we are always aware of other people's boxes; never our own!

As to how much Austen represents her age, her almost exact contemporary was the vastly more successful Sir Walter Scott. If we want a notion of what the reading classes liked we need to read 'Waverley' or 'Heart of Midlothian'. Yet today, who is the more read author? 'Janeites' would surely claim this as evidence that Austen's box was bigger than those small worlds described in her plots.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Obvious Leo »

Londoner. The scientific perspective on human behaviour is that nothing is hard-wired in the sense that a particular action can be compelled to occur without an associated process of will. Human minds are not programmed but rather "programme" themselves according to certain pre-dispositions which are impossible to clearly define. In my own world-view this means that whatever our "conditioning" we are ultimately responsible for our own choices and whatever moral virtue or culpability attaches to them. As I see it nobody has the authority to instruct me on what constitutes correct ethical conduct and neither do I claim such a right.

Having said that I do reckon that the quality of our ethical choices, although objectively unmeasurable, is informed by the quality of the information which shapes the evolving mind. If much of this information is untrue then the ethical choices can have harmful consequences for those around us. I offer Iraq and Syria as current examples. I make no judgement on the moral culpability of the participants in such conflicts but I am anguished that their choices are founded on lies and deceit.

Regards Leo
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Belinda »

Londoner wrote:
(Belinda wrote)Science explains how the foetus develops from an egg and a sperm to a morula and intermediate stages. Science also explains how a foetus can be viable at six months , and what the chances and technology are for a very premature baby to be healthy.


(Londoner replied)I do not see how this bears on abortion. Both sides can agree about the science of how an embryo develops, but one thinks the rights of the embryo trump any right of choice by the mother, and the other side thinks the reverse. There is no scientific experiment which will show which side is correct.
It applies to the abortion debate because some people base ethical decisions upon the human, his body ,his feelings and his mind so that his welfare and his happiness are the ethical concern. The foetus is progressively less of a human being relative to the development of the occupant of the womb. Thus even prolife supporters would mostly agree that it's worse to abort a foetus than an embryo: nobody who calls for elective abortion likes abortion but regards it as the lesser evil in some circumstances. Nobody likes abortion and science helps us to know why it is objectively repugnant and why nevertheless it is may be less bad than completing the pregnancy.

Not everybody bases ethical decisions upon the human, his body, his feelings and his mind. Others base ethical decisions upon unreflecting feelings. Yet others base ethical decisions upon the diktat of priests or kings or some other form of social superior such as a holy book or a secret policeman.

Philosophy which itself is given a huge boost by enlightenment values helps us to have the insight into our own prejudices so that we can be a little more able to navigate the complexities of ethics.
Socialist
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Londoner »

Obvious Leo
Having said that I do reckon that the quality of our ethical choices, although objectively unmeasurable, is informed by the quality of the information which shapes the evolving mind.
How so?

If, for example, I think that the highest moral consideration is to preserve life, then I can see how scientific information might help me choose how to best realise that objective. But how to best achieve a purpose is a pragmatic, not a moral question. A soldier and a pacifist could be in perfect agreement about the destructive effects of bombing, but that would not touch on whether it is was moral act.
If much of this information is untrue then the ethical choices can have harmful consequences for those around us. I offer Iraq and Syria as current examples. I make no judgement on the moral culpability of the participants in such conflicts but I am anguished that their choices are founded on lies and deceit.
Fighters on all sides in those wars can - and presumably do - consider that what they are doing will result in a net moral benefit. To some extent they will agree - for example all sides might say they are against 'corrupt tyrants', even though they don't agree who that description best describes, or the sort of society that is best suited to avoid 'corrupt tyranny'.

So the action itself; the fighting etc. or even the objectives do not seem to me to be a moral issue for those involved - all sides are OK with fighting as a method, all sides agree on the sort of outcome they are fighting for.

The events may be a moral issue from the point of view of an outsider - a complete or partial pacifist, whose value system holds that the evils of war outweigh any possible benefit, or that some specific level of violence does so. But I do not think the pacifist can claim those who think differently are the victim of 'lies and deceit'. There is no objective standard that can show the Quaker's values are more 'truthful' than anyone else's.

Belinda:
It applies to the abortion debate because some people base ethical decisions upon the human, his body ,his feelings and his mind so that his welfare and his happiness are the ethical concern. The foetus is progressively less of a human being relative to the development of the occupant of the womb. Thus even prolife supporters would mostly agree that it's worse to abort a foetus than an embryo: nobody who calls for elective abortion likes abortion but regards it as the lesser evil in some circumstances. Nobody likes abortion and science helps us to know why it is objectively repugnant and why nevertheless it is may be less bad than completing the pregnancy.
If two people had some agreed yardstick such they could judge 'worse-ness' or 'lesser/greater evil' then there would be no problem. For example, if we could agree that it was all about 'pain' and we could find some sort of single scale to measure 'pain for the foetus' and 'pain for the mother' , then we could do the sums and solve the problem. And I agree, since usually both sides can agree that 'pain is bad' they might agree that certain choices are 'worse/better'...but only comparatively in the sense that we could agree that 'mild torture is better than severe torture'. That would not impact on the question whether torture is moral.

Moral questions arise at the point where agreement over which are the relevant facts breaks down.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Belinda »

Londoner wrote:
If two people had some agreed yardstick such they could judge 'worse-ness' or 'lesser/greater evil' then there would be no problem. For example, if we could agree that it was all about 'pain' and we could find some sort of single scale to measure 'pain for the foetus' and 'pain for the mother' , then we could do the sums and solve the problem. And I agree, since usually both sides can agree that 'pain is bad' they might agree that certain choices are 'worse/better'...but only comparatively in the sense that we could agree that 'mild torture is better than severe torture'. That would not impact on the question whether torture is moral.

Moral questions arise at the point where agreement over which are the relevant facts breaks down.
Pride and Prejudice is a comedy because all the crises are resolved with none of the participants expressing any doubt that they are 100% satisfied with the denouements. P and P would serve as the outline for a pantomime. Life is not a comedy in the sense that problems have ideal solutions. Abortion is a life problem with no ideal solution. Ethics is a guide to life but it's foolish to imagine that any study of ethics, however aided by knowledge of facts , will point to actions that are devoid of risk.

Complaints that we are plagued by ethical dilemmas is useless hand-wringing.
Socialist
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Obvious Leo »

Londoner wrote: So the action itself; the fighting etc. or even the objectives do not seem to me to be a moral issue for those involved - all sides are OK with fighting as a method, all sides agree on the sort of outcome they are fighting for.
I guess this is the same thing as we see in the modern world where one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Since we are largely discussing matters of opinion I have a problem with this:
Londoner wrote: A soldier and a pacifist could be in perfect agreement about the destructive effects of bombing, but that would not touch on whether it is was moral act.
Do you not make the assumption that there is such a thing as a moral act and then contradict yourself here?
Londoner wrote:Moral questions arise at the point where agreement over which are the relevant facts breaks down.
:

When we set ourselves up as moral accountants don't we subscribe to an absolute morality which allows us to judge Austen's characters outside of their historical context, or Jefferson's hypocrisy which today we find so discordant. Surely the notion of a moral act can't be divorced from that of a moral choice, which inevitably makes the morality entirely subjective. I'm aware that a complete commitment to the notion of only a subjective morality is problematic for the orderly progress of a society but for this we have systems of laws. To equate morality with legality or illegality may well be pragmatic but it could hardly be described as logical.

Regards Leo
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Analyzing Pride and Prejudice the novel

Post by Londoner »

Belinda wrote:Abortion is a life problem with no ideal solution. Ethics is a guide to life but it's foolish to imagine that any study of ethics, however aided by knowledge of facts , will point to actions that are devoid of risk.
As I say, I don't see how facts are any help at all when people don't agree on which facts are important. Nor do I understand what you mean by 'risk'? Such terms presuppose an agreement, but moral dilemmas indicate that such an agreement does not exist. John values free love - Jane values chastity. If they are discussing sex each will understand words like 'risk' to refer to different things.
Complaints that we are plagued by ethical dilemmas is useless hand-wringing.
Neither complaints nor hand-wringing from me!

-- Updated August 8th, 2014, 1:21 pm to add the following --
Me: A soldier and a pacifist could be in perfect agreement about the destructive effects of bombing, but that would not touch on whether it is was moral act.

Obvious Leo: Do you not make the assumption that there is such a thing as a moral act and then contradict yourself here?
I certainly acknowledge people make what they consider to be moral statements, but that doesn't concede these statements are meaningful - either at all, or in the sense those asserting them may claim.
Surely the notion of a moral act can't be divorced from that of a moral choice, which inevitably makes the morality entirely subjective.
In which case, what does 'morality' refer to? If we speak of a 'moral act' it seems to imply that we are describing the nature of the act. 'Abortion is wrong' seems to be asserting a fact about the act of abortion. If so, then what can show whether such an assertion is true or false? Those that make such judgements may disagree about which criteria should be used - but they must agree that there are criteria.

But to say morality is subjective is to deny there is any objective standard available. In which case, what does saying something is 'good/bad' mean?

In my humble opinion, I think that if we want to make a moral assertion (which we do!) we have no choice but make it from the standpoint of an ideology. But these days we are uncomfortable with that because we are aware that no ideology can be affirmed through science-type reasoning - and asserting as true something that is not scientific smacks of religion, which puts us in the same camp as the boys from ISIS.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of the Arts and Philosophy in the Arts”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021